>From: Donald Shedrick <shedridc@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>When I scan a good Kodachrome slide with my 2700 dpi scanner
>resulting in a 3600 x 2400 pixel image (8.64 MP image size)the
>resulting image is noticably less in resolution, and in dynamic range
>of highlight and shadow detail than the slide original. My question
>is how would a 8 MP digital camera image compare to the scanned image
>and the film image in resolution and dynamic range?
A GOOD digital camera should always out-perform a scan with the equivalent
amount of information. Sometimes startlingly so.
It's simply the "analog generation problem": a copy of an original can only
approach the quality of the original, not meet nor exceed it. (In information
theory terms, this is called "entropy". Just some flame-bait for the
anti-book-knowledge types out there. :-)
So even if the sampling system were ideal, it would only approach the quality
of the slide. In the real world, sampling systems are FAR from ideal. Your 2700
spi scanner probably has less than 10db of adjacent pixel isolation -- CCDs are
notorious for "pixel bleed" -- so sharp edges will appear softer, because a
full black-white transition will take at least four pixels. Also, unless you're
using film with about 1000 lpmm resolution (can we say "Tech Pan"? :-), you
will probably see some grain aliasing, which you won't get with a digicam.
That said, there are a lot of crappy digicams out there, and a GOOD film scan
MAY out-perform a crappy digicam of equivalent pixel count.
>Most I had printed directly from the film, but some I scanned first
>because they needed some digital modifications, then I had them
>printed by the Fuji Frontier system. While this system is the best
>and most economical I have found, the prints from the scanner had
>noticeably less resolution and dynamic range.
But did they look the same on the screen? You should be able to make the
dynamic range the same, or nearly so. (Certainly near enough for photochemical
prints on the Frontier, which can only to about 2.4 Drange max anyway.)
You didn't mention what scanner you used. Based on the resolution, it sounds
like a film scanner, which is good. (Don't expect wonderful results from a
flatbed that has less than five digits in its price.) But different film
scanners can have very different results.
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|